A student recently expressed that he wanted greater structure for his Spanish lessons and also wanted to have a clearer sense of what he would be learning when.  He said that he wanted a textbook and practice exercises.  I am reluctant to head too far down the coursebook path for various reasons such as the likely greater focus on grammatical forms than on communicative competencies, the lack of individualization (and therefore relevance to students’ lives) and the limited amount of textbook-like resources for Spanish that are available online.

The solution

To address the student’s concerns, I have developed a kind of syllabus that gives greater structure to the classes and yet is naturally student focused.  This syllabus is based around situations that the student may well find himself in and themes that he is interested in.  There is a tendency for certain communicative skills to be foregrounded according to the situation, but neither specific linguistic skills nor grammatical forms are the driving force behind this syllabus. Instead, there is considerable flexibility with how the student and teacher jointly interpret the activities proposed by the syllabus.

Syllabus contents

The syllabus contains the following sections…

• Subjects for discussion: My World activities are suggested topics of conversation that focus on the students’ own lives.  There are also suggestions of how to ensure that these in-class conversations are pedagogically fruitful.
• Situations for role-play: Practical Simulation activities are unscripted role-plays that allow students to prepare for everyday scenarios that they anticipate encountering in the near future.
• Teacher’s guide to help teachers use the syllabus.  The guide includes support on preparing lessons and on how to teach using the syllabus.
• The student guide helps students understand what their role could and perhaps should be in the learning process.

A Dogme textbook

In some sense this syllabus can be considered a Dogme textbook.  This sounds like a contradiction in terms, but in fact is intended to offer the student greater structure than pure Dogme teaching and yet maintain the freedom for dialogic learning.

• Content (materials) light: this syllabus is an unusual type of textbook, because it has no content for the student to consume.  True to Dogme principles, there are no materials such as texts to read, exercises, gap-fills, scripted dialogues, vocabulary lists, videos or audios.  Instead there are guidelines and templates to help students give their learning a thematic structure.
• Conversation driven: both My World and Practical Simulations place considerable emphasis on dialogic learning; conversation (rather than exercises, gap fills or vocabulary memorization) is the vehicle for the learning of new lexis and structures.  However, not any conversation is inherently pedagogical, and so it sets out in the teacher guide what the properties of a pedagogical conversation are (see also “What makes a pedagogical conversation?” blog post).
• Emergence: dialogic learning is based on emergent pedagogy, which allows for learning opportunities to be exploited as and when they arise.  Essentially this emergent syllabus allows for “just-in-time” learning (as compared to “just in case” learning).

Just-in-time learning

The syllabus is a list of potential topics for in-class and out-of-class learning, rather than a course to be followed in any particular order. Indeed, the idea is that the student will choose what topics are covered in the syllabus (either choosing from the list or suggesting new ones).  As such, students focus on what they need, when they need it.  New vocabulary, phrases and (grammatical) forms emerge from the process as they are needed.

In “just-in-time” learning the teacher or textbook presents language that learners need. For example, a chapter on furnishings may well present new words that are typical for a house.  However, students are most likely to need words to describe their own house (rather than a typical one).  So, if a student has wooden floors, terms such as parquet, bamboo, hard wood, soft wood, polish and plastic-coated would be relevant and useful.  If the student has wall-to-wall carpeting then carpet pile, soft, durable and various colors would be more appropriate.  Dogme teaching gives sufficient space for this specific vocabulary to emerge from the learning process.

This emergent syllabus offers two approaches to learning:

• My World: activities focus on discussing topics that are relevant to the student’s life.  They follow similar themes to those found in textbooks, but from the student’s perspective.  The suggested topics give the students ample opportunity to present and discuss their own particular situation: their work, their home, their commute to work, etc.  Each ‘unit’ is presented as a pure Dogme lesson, where the lesson plan is merely a starting point for conversation.
• Practical Simulations: activities designed to prepare the student for specific real-life situations that the students will soon find themselves in.  Simulations are more structured (than My World activities) and there is a clearer aim: namely that the student will be able to carry out a task in a given situation.  Although these activities are structured, they still draw on emergent pedagogy and can therefore be thought of as Dogme style role-plays.

Real-life learning: out-of-class and mobile learning

The syllabus forms a link between the student’s real-life experiences and their classroom based learning.  It also provides a route for teachers to support the student’s out-of-class learning.  Practical Simulations prepare students for real-life tasks; but these tasks can also feedback into the classroom: students can prepare for a phone call or a shopping trip using a Personal Phrasebook to prepare and look up useful phrases before (or even during) the situation.  Students can then record the experience (using an MP3 player or other mobile device) and bring the recording to a subsequent class.  My World activities can also function in a similar way because they are, effectively, simulations for general conversation.  Students could even record (short) conversations to be subsequently used in class.  In this way lessons recognize and support out-of-class learning. 

The main difference between My World discursive activities and Practical Simulations is the extent to which the student can predict the nature of the dialogue: is it a general conversation that could cover a wide range of topics or is it more tightly determined by a specific goal or by social norms?

Why do this?

An ‘emergent syllabus’ or ‘Dogme textbook’ sounds like an unusual collocation and it begs the question of why.  I see a couple of reasons to go through with the process of drafting an emergent syllabus.

• it has helped me to understand what I like and dislike about textbooks and to better understand the value and shortcomings of textbooks
• it has encouraged me to navigate the conundrum of offering structure to the teaching and learning processes, while at the same time keeping the focus on the student and allowing the student to maintain control of his/her own learning process.  In short, it allowed me to consider how to structure learning without taking control away from the student

Future developments

This emergent syllabus is just a first draft and it will need some changes and additions after a little while.  It is certainly focused on written and spoken work and it is clear that sections addressing reading and listening activities will need to be developed too.

Springboards for learning

This syllabus has been based on my experiences as a language learner and as a language teacher.  Recent Mandarin classes in China helped me better understand what lessons are like from the student’s perspective and they gave me an opportunity to link my out-of-class learning with my one-to-one lessons.  I frequently brought my own objects, photos, texts, voice recordings and video recordings into lesson and used them either as props for My World activities or to help me prepare for Practical Simulations.  I found that the simulations tended to merge into a general discussion about the topic of the simulation; yet these broader conversations were complementary to the Practical Simulations and served to reinforce new lexis and form.  The (Dogme) classroom conversations helped me in real-life situations because it reused the same vocabulary (eg words to describe tea) but with a different perspective (what I liked/disliked rather than ordering a cup of tea).  I think this demonstrates that textbooks, class materials and lesson plans (even if they are created by the student) are only a starting point for the student’s own learning.

In fact, developing this syllabus has been a learning process for me and I welcome feedback (perhaps as a comment below or by email) on this project to help me continue learning.

The significance of phrases

Phrases are especially important in language learning because they increase fluency for both native speakers and language learners alike.  This is because there is a limit to the length of sentences we can create without using pre-constructed phrases as shortcuts; phrases reduce the cognitive load and so speed up our talking.  Personally, I find some peace of mind when using phrases in a foreign language, because I know that they will be grammatically correct without my needing to think about it.

Learners tend to gain new phrases through repeated use (presumably in real-life situations, but also in simulations/role-plays and any related class-work), just as native speakers do.   But how can learners find the right phrases when they need them?  Two classic solutions are the travel phrasebook and the business writing guide (book).  Both are kept to hand: in the traveler’s pocket or on the office desk; and both are organized according to themes or situations.  These reference books are very useful and with web and mobile phrasebooks appearing, they will become easier to use exactly when needed.

The need for a “personal” phrasebook

However, published phrasebooks are very general and will often not respond to the specific need of a particular learner.  When I went to the post office in China last month I found my travel phrasebook useful for considering initial requests, but preparation in lesson was what enabled me to have a more complete list of phrases for my exact situation.  I found that I needed my own Personal Phrasebook (PPB), tailored precisely to me and my needs.

A student’s “email phrasebook”

One of my students, Michal, wanted help in using English at work – especially when writing emails.  I’ve noticed from my own use of English at work that there are a lot of phrases that I use again and again, so I suggested she keep a notebook with useful phrases that she can use when emailing.  Essentially it is her own, personal phrasebook that she creates uses and expands according to her needs as they arise (see screenshot below).

The phrases are organized into sections in a similar way to a phrasebook with situations and tasks as headings. The new phrases are added in three main ways…

1. Michal shows me emails she has written and we check them (for accuracy, lexis and appropriateness) and identify good phrases for the phrasebook
2. Michal explains what she wants to say and we jointly create some text and extract good phrases from it
3. Michal shows me emails she receives and we consider any questions or doubts she has.  We then copy good phrases into the phrasebook.

Perhaps it is worth considering what a “good phrase” actually is.  Obviously this is highly subjective, but I would include the following attributes…

• simple – the construction is within easy reach of the student so it is easy to remember
• appropriate – the phrase is appropriate to the (business) situation at hand
• flexible – some phrases can be used in a wider range of situations.  Such phrases are more useful and they are probably easier to learn (because they are naturally repeated more often)

Personal phrasebooks as a process

So in part, Michal needs a PPB so that she can more easily organize the content and make it easier to find when she needs it.  Perhaps an electronic/online phrasebook with a good index or search function would suffice.  However, a PPB is more than just a reference source; it is also the content, medium and activity through which the learner learns the phrases and language.  It is also an ongoing reference source for future occurrences of similar situations.  Put another way, the student writes his/her own phrasebook, and that very task is part of the learning process.  As the PPB grows it becomes a more useful reference source and Michal will find herself looking up phrases more often than she creates content for the PPB.

PLEs and PPBs

PPBs share ground with PLEs; consider Cann’s definition of a PLE…

a system that helps learners take control of and manage their own learning. This includes providing support for learners to set their own learning goals, manage their learning, manage both content and process, and communicate with others in the process of learning.

PPBs seem to me to be a component of a learner’s broader PLE.  As such, a PPB is a concept that encompasses resources, tools, activities, goals and outputs: it is not just a tool or a place, but an approach to learning.

Format

As with PLEs, PPBs can make use of many different formats or tools.  For example word documents, Google Docs, paper-based notebooks and text programs on cell phones.  The important issues are that it is both easy to add to and edit and then easy to access for reference when it is needed.

These details will depend on each person’s situation – Michal’s phrasebook is to help her when writing emails and so it doesn’t really need to be accessible on her phone, nor offline; and so hers is in Google Docs.  Other learners may need to have access when offline or when on the move, so they may choose other tools.

Teacher’s role

My role with Michal has been mainly to suggest creating a PPB, encourage its use and help identify suitable phrases to put in it.  As a native speaker, students will find me especially useful for checking the correctness and suitability of the phrases.  But learners can also check phrases themselves to see how often they are used in the way the learner wants to: Google searches can give a good indication as to whether a phrase/word is commonly used and what context they are usually used in.  If Michal’s native language were German she could use Linguee.de to look up a phrase in German for an equivalent phrase in English and then select from the results.  There are also other tools that can be used to suggest phrases and explore their suitability and contexts; my recent blog post on phrase-based dictionaries describes a few.  These tools can also be explored in lesson to help the learner develop more autonomy in creating their PPB.

Conclusion

Personal Phrasebooks draw on the PLE concept to focus the student’s learning on phrases (rather than at the level of words or grammar).  It is a very practical tool to solve everyday linguistic problems.  However, it is also an approach (like PLEs) that requires a certain level of learner autonomy.  Teachers can suggest and encourage, but the PPB needs to be student driven if it is to become part of their out-of-class learning and included in everyday life.

Learners need to become good at both ‘noticing’ phrases that they would be able to use themselves and also at ‘noticing’ gaps in their language knowledge, so that they seek out a phrase or structure to fill the gap.  There are online tools that can help learners decide on a phrase’s applicability to their situation.  However, it seems that the teacher will also have a role to play in helping the learner gain these skills to learn more autonomously out-of-class.

Talking about Chinese soymilk

During my lessons I brought objects, photos, texts, audio and video into class to share with my teacher and discuss:

• Objects: drinks I had bought at the shop
• Texts: photos of menus or signs I had seen the previous day
• Pictures and video: photos and videos of things I had seen, done or eaten
• Audio: recordings of conversations I had had – perhaps when buying something

In one lesson I brought in a soy-drink and we talked about what it was, how much it cost, where I got it, whether I liked it (and whether my teacher liked it), what the ingredients were, how it was made, etc.  It turned out that my teacher often made soymilk at home for breakfast in a soymilk maker (I had no idea they even existed), which lead me to visit a domestic appliances store after class and inquire about the machines.  In fact I recorded the conversation with my MP3 player and played it back in a subsequent lesson, which meant that the soymilk conversation was revisited in a natural way the next day.

These conversations paused from time to time to allow me to write down new words and phrases, discuss grammatical issues or drill my pronunciation.  The discussions were slow – in part, because I cannot speak Chinese quickly, but also because there were natural pauses that allowed us to think of new questions to take the conversation forward.  The presence of objects such as a soymilk drink seemed to help us refocus on the conversation’s theme after breaks from the topic to consider any new language.  When the conversation dried up, I would find a photo I had taken (of a menu, a sign or something I had found interesting when walking around Kunming) and start a new topic.

These conversations were interesting because, for example, both my teacher and I like soymilk.  And the lessons improved my Chinese because they helped me in an immediate and practical way to do things (such as buy soymilk) more easily.  But they also improved my  general conversational skills with respect to food/drink and other everyday subjects.  And, of course, it also gave opportunities to learn and practice more general phrases such as “I like ___”; “Do you like ___?”; “I think that… “; “I don’t know, but… “

These lessons weren’t just practical conversations for everyday life in China, – they also included discussions about Chinese grammar – usually when I couldn’t use a structure from English because it has no direct equivalent in Chinese.  And they also included talk about why I wanted to learn in through conversation and what I thought was working well or not so well about the lessons.

Layers of learning

There seems to have been two clear levels of learning in the lessons – language learning and meta-cognitive skills.

• Language learning is essentially the words and grammar that we absorb and produce
• Meta-cognitive skills is where learners gain awareness of their language learning, their learning goals and the strategies they employ

The importance of conversation

Yet the class’s conversation had not only these two layers, but a third layer: the topic of the conversation.  And the topic itself was important; I found it interesting, for example, to talk about soymilk, as it was highly relevant to my life at that moment.  It also helped me to learn some Chinese that helped me out of class – when buying soymilk or asking at a soymilk stand how they made the drink.

This conversation led to new phrases and structures, so there was a natural introduction of grammar, as and when I needed it.  The dialogic approach had another advantage: it led to greater connection with my conversation partner (teacher) – as perhaps all good conversation should; we were able to get to know each other in an easy and comfortable way through topics such as what we like to eat.

It strikes me that this conversation-based learning gave the usual benefits of dialogue with others (interesting and engaging social time that leads to better understanding between me and my teacher); and it also was a vehicle that naturally helped the lessons focus on the Chinese I needed at the time – both lexis and form.

Pedagogical Conversation Skills

So what exactly is it about the conversations about soymilk and other subjects from my life in Kunming that made them not just enjoyable, but also pedagogically beneficial?  And more generally, what makes a conversation pedagogical?

• Shared awareness of the conversation’s layers: teachers and students need to be on the same page as to what the conversation should achieve and how it will do so.  There needs to be a common sense that the different layers (topic, language learning, meta-cognitive skills) exist and that each has its role to play.  I did this in China by initially explaining to my teacher what I wanted to do, agreeing on it and then doing it; we then talked about it several times throughout the lessons to make sure the conversations were going well for both of us.

• Real conversations: the conversations need to be genuine, free dialogue that each participant can engage in and help to shape.  Role-play and reading aloud have their uses, but they should not be confused with dialogue that has its own life.  Within a good conversation there is genuine interest in what others say and the employment of conversation skills (listening, asking, and sharing), which leads to greater understanding and connection.  I introduced everyday subjects through objects, pictures etc and then asked questions so that there was a genuine dialogue rather than simple monologues from me.

• Conversation provides continuity: although dialogue provides great conversation practice, a pedagogical conversation also leads to the emergence of language learning opportunities.  Yet interruptions to explore the language being used create a break in the continuity of the conversation (and therefore the lesson).  To keep the conversation alive there needs to be a way to easily return to the conversation topic after a foray into a point of lexis or form.  The objects and photos served as an anchor to remind of the topic again.

• Space and time for emergence: emergence is not necessarily a fast process and if the conversation rushes ahead, language learning could become sidelined.  A slower, more reflective class will allow emergence to happen.  I speak Chinese slowly (and my teacher was just incredibly patient!), so this happened naturally.  But even so, there were pauses that allowed us to choose what to do next (continue the conversation, turn to a point of language or change the topic).

The below chart takes these same issues and offers some suggestions of how pedagogical dialogue can be achieved in class…

From learner to teacher

In this blog post I have tried to map out the aspects of my classroom conversations that led to actual Chinese learning.  This process has helped me understand better both how and why class conversations allow language learning opportunities to emerge and how they can be exploited.  This exercise has also given me space to reflect on how I can converse better in lessons – not just as a learner, but also as a teacher.

This blog post is a set of notes of my thoughts about out-of-class learning and how it can be supported by in-class activities.  The video shows me explaining a mind-map of these ideas, which itself is available as a photo so that it is easier to read.

A Note about the Mind-Map and Video

I created the map to get a clearer sense of how the contents were related to one another and so to give me a good overview.  I have been working with these ideas for some time, but felt that I was getting lost in the detail.  I then started to explain (aloud) to an imaginary audience to both fill in gaps (ie add lines and issues) and to get a clearer sense of the nature of the relationships.   I decided to film this to be able to share it and the above video is the result.  The video itself is anything other than a slick production, but by then transcribing what I said I did end up with a structure for the below text.  This is the first time I have used video in this way and I am pleased with the results – although I frequently speak out loud to structure what I write, this is the first time I have recorded it.

Informal Learning and Emergence

The mind-map starts with the learner and how it is likely that most learning takes place outside of the language class.  From this starting point, I think it is best to first look at the theory that guides the mind-map – namely socially constructed learning.  As I started to explore this theory in language learning, I quickly found myself being drawn to Dogme language teaching.  Dogme sees conversation as the vehicle for language learning and this in turn draws on the concept of emergent pedagogies.  Emergence sees learning as occurring through ‘affordances’ (language learning opportunities within the conversation) and so learning takes place according to the needs of the students, when the students need it.  Essentially it is a just-in-time approach, which contrasts with the ‘just in case’ style of more conventional language teaching.  So, new language (eg lexis or forms) are not pre-taught by the teacher and the teacher does not set out what will be learned in class.  Instead, the new language emerges from the interaction in the dialogue.

Conversations for Emergence

Dogme tends to focus on conversations that take place within the language classroom and there is in fact little discussion of conversations outside this context.  The teacher is therefore presumed to play an active role in the pedagogical conversation – and the teacher does this through asking guiding questions and scaffolding the language learning as it emerges.  I want to look at a broader range of conversations that language learners can potentially benefit from; considering informal, out-of-class dialogues recognizes the greater potential for Dogme-based learning than just what happens within a classroom.  I can see a few groups: everyday conversations with unwitting partners (ie they are not aware that the conversation may be helping the learner learn); discussions with informal peer-groups (who may have a greater or lesser understanding of the conversation’s significance for the learner); and informal class-like groupings such as ‘tandem’ language exchange partners (who probably are quite aware of the learner’s intentions and even strategies).

Conversations that move beyond simple negotiations of meaning (eg when shopping or asking for directions) will likely be more motivating and offer more (and deeper) affordances.  Such conversations I noted down as “who am I” situations because I think they relate to more personal issues and offer us the opportunity to be heard and understood on our own terms.  I think these are likely to be far more engaging and motivating for learners, because they are more relevant to our lives.

I also want to include conversations we have with ourselves – perhaps hypothetical ones that we have in our head or ones that are basically reflections upon something we are reading/watching.  So for example, this text and video is a monologue from me, but as you reflect upon it, are you not having a conversation (of sorts) in your head?  Likewise the production of this video came out of a similar process of me talking to myself.  Thinking about this reflection as conversations perhaps gives us a (Dogme) framework for considering the reflecting and noticing that takes place.

Dogme Learning

Expanding the notion of (language learning) conversations to include those taking place out-of-class, opens up the question of whether learners can learn in a Dogme fashion (rather than just teachers teaching the Dogme way).  Perhaps learners (in their informal learning) can apply similar strategies to the Dogme teacher in class.

Scaffolding is one such tool that Dogme teaching uses in class.  It is done to take advantage of the affordances in the conversation, leading to ‘noticing’ so that students become familiar with new patterns (eg form) to learn the new language.  Dogme learning requires the student to learn these same (teacher) skills to be able to take advantage of affordances in out-of-class situations.

Teaching students to self-scaffold is effectively teaching the student how to learn the language – how to reflect upon experiences and interactions (with conversation and/or text) – it is teaching the student metacognitive skills.  As such it requires considerable autonomy on the part of the learner; clearly most students would need some time before they had the skills to take full advantage of this kind of out-of-class learning in an independent way.

Context and Mobile Devices

I want to next turn to context.  Context is very much opened up by out-of-class learning.  Although classrooms are a context in their own right (both through the social interactions, and to a lesser extent, through the classrooms being a physical environment), out-of-class contexts are more diverse and probably hold greater relevance to the learner’s life.  Contexts are relevant in as much as they relate to the question “what does this context (physical or social) mean to me as a leaner?”

SmartPhones play a key role in opening up context for language learning, because they allow 24/7 access to both online resources and online contact with others.  So (language learning) context is both informationally rich and socially connected.  These mobile devices blur online and offline, which is quite new because previously we considered access to knowledge to be location specific (eg via an expert who is physically somewhere, if only mobile in his/her own right or via a library, which is even less mobile).  With a SmartPhone there is no need to go out of our way to get information or assistance.  I should mention that I don’t see SmartPhones as essential for this kind of learning, but I do think that these compact, connecting devices do represent a step change in how we can exploit new (everyday) environments for language learning.  Put another way, much of this approach could be achieved without electronic technologies, but it would likely be cumbersome (carrying dictionaries around) and there would be many obstacles along the way (quickly gaining access to people and information).

As a bit of a side note, I want to mention that this approach is different from some mLearning projects that focus on pushing content (from an instructor via an iPhone app to the learner); instead, information and interactions are pulled (or sought) by the learner according to need and interest.

Contact with others via SmartPhones can either be with people we know or with strangers.  People we know are available via our social networks; strangers are available according to specific areas of common interest or shared location.  Geo-tagged twitter and BrightKite.com are good examples of conversations being mediated by these mobile devices; they enable (locally based) conversations according to what we are interested in rather than according to who we know.  Both network-based and location-based conversations open up the range of relevant and motivating interactions that (potentially) support language learning affordances.

A personal example of this is my using the online dictionary, www.wordreference.com, to find out what “saca las cuentas” means.  I saw the phrase on a billboard in La Paz and so I took a picture and uploaded it to the forum.  I received a reply in less than 5 minutes!  In this moment the online forum acted as an ‘in situ’ peer-group for my language learning.

Implications for Language Teaching

The informal, out-of-class learning that students are already doing represents a great opportunity to leverage it from within the language class.  Not only does these out-of-class activities provide relevant and engaging material for in-class conversations, but both the efficacy of the activities and the meta-cognitive skills needed to learn from them can also be explored and fine-tuned in class.  Essentially the teaching will move in the direction of teaching how to learn and away from simply teaching the language itself.  As such, this interpretation of Dogme teaching is that it facilitates Dogme learning.

Scaffolding (as done by the teacher in a Dogme lesson) is now modeled by the teacher for the students to do on their own.  Noticing is therefore dealt with explicitly so that students are aware of the benefits and the practices of noticing.  The technique for the teacher to hold this space for the student to notice and self-scaffold is the same as when teaching the language itself: scaffolding.

Class activities can also change to both draw on the experiences of out-of-class learning and model activities that can be carried out independently between lessons.  listening to what students already do out-of-class enables the teacher to understand what can be done, what appeals to the students and how informal learning fits in with their interest in learning the language.  Discussions of how and why certain strategies may be effective, allow students to gain metacognitive skills that help them select new activities.

The language lesson changes to include counseling type activities, where the teacher giving the student space to reflect upon their own language learning.

Emergent Syllabus

Although the lessons may take on a more responsive or reactive tone, there is still probably opportunity to do so in a proactive way through considering a syllabus that allows the language learning to emerge.  I am currently putting together an “emergent syllabus” for some students who want a greater sense of what they will be doing each week.  I am creating a menu of topics and situations for them to choose from so that the structure is based on their communicative needs rather than on specific (grammatical) forms or skills.  I am creating the ‘menu’ to offer students guidance and structure, yet I want to offer them choice and freedom to interpret as they wish.

Syllabuses seem to be closely related to tests and although I struggle to feel at ease with testing, I am now thinking that it would be possible to test in an emergent way if the students themselves are setting the goals and deciding upon meaningful indicators.  Students certainly need to be autonomous learners to be able to carry out such a task and to take on the sharing of responsibility for measuring their progress.  In my example, I suggest that students could aim for goals that relate to their personal interest (approaches to teaching, in my case) and adjust it for the student’s level of competency.

Conclusion

Although I am interested in the practicalities of how to use mobile devices in language learning (for capturing and organizing information; for gaining access to information; and for being in contact with others), it is the question of autonomy that I think plays a more significant role (than the technology).  Informal, out-of-class learning may be highly motivating and bring context to the fore in language learning, but it also requires considerable autonomy on the part of the student – both in terms of specific ‘teach-yourself-skills’ and in terms of the self-awareness needed to take responsibility for your own learning.

Bibliography

The bibliography itself will follow, but in the meantime here are some names of authors I have been reading…

• Phil Benson
• Jeremy Cross
• Fiona Hyland
• Agnes Kukulska-Hulme
• Leo van Lier
• Hayo Reinders
• Klaus Schwienhorst
• Scott Thornbury
• Leily Ziglari

Methodological Guidelines

In “Dogme: Dancing in the dark?” Scott Thornbury sets out the original guidelines (“vows”) for Dogme.  The below guidelines for Dogme 2.0 draw on these Dogme principles to suggest an approach appropriate to a web 2.0 world.  As such they focus on the areas where 2.0 technologies are changing our relationship to knowledge and therefore our approaches to learning.

• Enabling conversation: technology can enable dialogue, broadening the range of participants, or deepening the conversation by involving others.
• Content co-creation: materials stimulate conversation, but the content for the lesson is driven, indeed created, by the students themselves.  Collaborative tools (such as wikis) can encourage students to work together to create the lesson’s content.
• Locality: mobile devices can help students relate to their current location, through photographing, filming, audio recording or writing descriptions relating to where they are.  A Dogme use of mobile devices helps students to better relate to their immediate surroundings, or to places that are important to them.
• Connections: strengthening communication with others (near or far) to facilitate connectivist learning that involves not just individuals but also broader networks or communities.
• Relevance: the internet is used to ensure greater relevance of the subject matter for the learner.  Students are able to find more specific information and connect with networks that are more suited to their interests.
• Voice: online publishing (be it text, audio, images or video) allows learners to be heard and included in specific and yet global discussions.
• Identity: students have space to express themselves and in so doing to focus on different aspects of their identity (perhaps in Second Life or by participating in different online networks or communities).  Students develop language skills that are relevant to them as individuals, through exploring their identity and relationship with the world.

To give some background to these suggestions, I discuss below some related concepts with respect to Dogme.

Connectivist learning beyond the classroom

George Siemens points to how learning is becoming increasingly informal, experiential, and continual.  This has implications for the teacher as the majority of the students’ learning will take place outside of the class and therefore beyond the immediate reach of the teacher.  Dogme 2.0 recognizes that a considerable amount of a student’s learning (perhaps most) takes place outside of lesson time and therefore beyond the classroom.  It addresses the question of how to enable continued conversations outside of the lesson, as it draws on technology to reconnect class members when they are physically distant from one another.    As such the students’ learning stretches beyond the class’s subject matter, its student body and the experiences they share together.

Connectivist learning places great importance on networks (of colleagues, friends and others interested in a particular subject) in enabling an individual’s learning.  Learners create and strengthen links between themselves and others who are also learning in the same or related fields.  Not only do they make connections between sources of knowledge, but also between other ideas or concepts.  Siemens sees this process as driven by the increasing need to manage changing contexts, where decisions are necessarily taken with limited knowledge.  Indeed he sees the capacity to learn (in the future) as being more important that the knowledge an individual currently has.  It is the capacity to make future connections that will solve future problems.  Dogme’s focus on the conversation allows the learning process to also strengthen network relationships, since the themselves are based upon communication.

Location and reality

By drawing upon what is already in the classroom (in preference to bringing in external materials) Dogme implicitly places great emphasis on being present in one’s physical (rather than virtual) location.  2.0 technologies can in fact be used to focus on our relationship with the real world: with places, people and experiences.  Mobile and 2.0 technologies can bridge experiences and conversations in the outside world with those within class.

• Mobile devices allow students to record their experiences between classes (as text, photos, sounds or video).  Text or voice recording permit students to capture their thoughts, impressions, reactions to that experience or environment.
• Twitter likewise allows learners to share their ideas with others (perhaps via a mobile phone) according to the moment.
• Augmented Reality on mobile devices can display data according to the physical location of the handset.  This information can be determined by the provider (as in web 1.0) or created by the device user (as web 2.0 applications).  These 2.0 programs (such as BrightKite and Tonchidot AirTags) allow greater connection with others depending on both the student’s location and interests.  Conversations can be both topic-specific and yet inclusive; they can be location-specific, yet global.
• Virtual worlds present Dogme 2.0 teachers with a greater challenge as they more obviously remove the student from their present location (and in this respect they are quite different from augmented reality).  However, virtual worlds can be used to focus on the students’ location: perhaps by virtually visiting where they live or work; perhaps by inviting students to build in a 3D virtual environment as a way to relate to their real world location.

Pedagogy 2.0

In the same way that Dogme is based on pedagogically sound foundations, so too is Dogme 2.0, where the focus is on the use of technology to achieve specific pedagogical goals.  However, Dogme 2.0 also recognizes that changes in technologies are leading to changing relationships to knowledge and therefore learning.  Learning increasingly takes place on the group level (in addition to the individual’s level), so web 2.0 tools play an enabling role in facilitating the building and development of networks within the process of learning.  Dogme has a natural role to play by focusing on conversation as the medium for both learning and developing network relationships.

Is Dogme 2.0 still Dogme?

Dogme 2.0 is very much an application of Dogme ideas to the world of web 2.0 and the above ideas are certainly in harmony with the three precepts that Meddings and Thornbury present in “Teaching Unplugged”.

1. Conversation driven: dialogue is at the heart of any Dogme lesson; it also enables connectivist learning through network building and development.  Dogme 2.0 allows the conversations to extend globally.
2. Materials light: the lesson’s content is created by the students themselves; the wealth of materials available online, merely serve to stimulate creation of content by the students.
3. Emergent language: Language emerges through the content that the students have created.  Grammar and new vocabulary are uncovered through the students striving to express themselves more accurately and more completely.

Dogme and learning 2.0

Both Dogme and learning 2.0 have much to offer each other.  However, it does not seem an evenly beneficial relationship.  Although Dogme 2.0 brings Dogme up to date (especially in its recognition of networked learning and connectivism), it is eLearning that gains most from Dogme: Dogme offers a clear framework for working with tools that so clearly place students at the center of their learning and in control of their own relationship to knowledge.

Some related links…

• Dogme for Virtual World Language Learning
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

I have been using virtual worlds such as Second Life for approximately two years and during this time I have done some interesting and engaging activities with students. However, I have also being looking for methodologies to draw upon to ensure that these activities are pedagogically sound and beneficial to the students’ learning. More recently I have taken a closer look at Dogme ELT as a pedagogy to guide these virtual world activities and Dogme has stood out as an approach that has much to offer virtual world language learning because of its focus on real life communication as the basis for developing language competencies.

This text starts with an overview of the Dogme approach and then continues by mapping out the different ways in which virtual worlds can be used for language learning. These two topics are then brought together to reflect on how Dogme can guide language teachers in using virtual worlds.

What is Dogme?
Dogme language teaching is a movement; it is a collective of teachers who have been inspired by the ideas of the Dogme film movement founded by Lars von Trier in 1995. Similar to the filmmakers, Dogme teachers are looking to return to the essence of a classroom by choosing to reduce or even avoid the use of technological tools and materials. Although virtual worlds are themselves high tech, a Dogme focus tends to take the activities in the direction of a lower tech approach that concentrates on the experiences that can lead to language emergence (or language acquisition). Followers of Dogme have generally moved away from using textbooks in class, partly as a desire to include real life materials and partly to reduce the role of third party content (text, audio, video) in the language lesson. In a Dogme lesson the students are encouraged to produce the content through their communication. This in turn leads to language learning opportunities in their striving to express themselves more clearly, fully and accurately. As such, this focus on communication reflects Dogme’s focus on social learning and so places the pedagogy within a constructivist context.

No Syllabus
Whereas a textbook strives to organize the learning into a program of themed units, Dogme teaching does not follow a syllabus, but instead prefers to allow the students’ needs and interests to set the pace and direction. In Dogme the syllabus emerges, or indeed is uncovered through the process of reflecting upon the language that emerges in class. Dogme language teaching is therefore a process, where the teacher responds to students’ needs rather than preemptively planning for them.

Principles
The Dogme approach is based upon some key principles that were set out by the movement’s founder, Scott Thornbury (ref). Learning is considered to take place through the interaction amongst the students and between the students and the teachers. This interaction enables knowledge to be co-constructed by the students rather than transmitted by the teacher to the students. In fact, by concentrating on conversation as the vehicle for learning, the knowledge is jointly assembled by the participants in what is termed ‘scaffolding’. As such, the teacher’s role is more akin to a “guide on the side” than that of a “stage on the stage”.

As already mentioned, communication is seen as the key vehicle for language learning, because it allows for affordances or language learning opportunities to arise in class. In this way language learning is considered to be not so much of a process of acquisition (as in second language acquisition) as more one of emergence: the language emerges from the students’ conversations in class. These conversations in effect become the primary content in the language lesson, and especially contribute to the class because they enable the introduction of the students’ beliefs, knowledge and experiences into the learning process. The question of content is particularly interesting in the context of virtual worlds because a virtual world, such as Second Life, offers experiences far more than it can offer third party content in the way that published materials do. In a conventional (classroom-based), Dogme lesson the content is preferably introduced (at least in part) by the students themselves. This more proactive role of the students helps to ensure that the content is engaging and relevant, which are key attributes to promote the communication that leads to language emergence and therefore language learning.

Virtual World Language Learning
In order to consider how Dogme can guide virtual world language education, the above overview will now be placed within the context of the various ways in which virtual worlds offer opportunities for language learning. I see four main types of experiences that the learner may have in a virtual world: social, immersive, creative and gaming.

1. Social: Almost all 3D virtual environments (a notable exception being Google Street View) are social spaces which allow the opportunity for social interactions for language learning. These social experiences could be formal group lessons or casual conversations with unknown residents of a 3D virtual world. This type of experience can be approached from a Dogme perspective to enable language emergence.
2. Immersive: All 3D virtual environments can offer users immersive experiences that can stimulate conversation for use in a Dogme lesson. In Second Life this could take the form of a virtual field trip to the moon or to a replica of a real life place such as Barcelona. The important aspect here is that immersive spaces are stimulating and engaging places and that this can promote the use and therefore development of a foreign language.
3. Creative: Some virtual worlds, allow the residents to customize their avatars, decorate their homes or even build entire cities, as is the case in Second Life. This can be drawn upon in lessons to allow students to describe their constructions and how they relate to them. If done as a collaborative task the process of building can itself be a communicative activity. Again, a Dogme approach is able to recognize the pedagogical value of these more creative activities.
4. Gaming: Many 3D virtual environments are in fact Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) that can also be used to further language learning. MMOGs often involve considerable negotiation and collaboration amongst players and therefore may also offer scope for Dogme inspired teaching. MMOGs for language learning is a relatively new field and there are few recorded examples of attempts to incorporate MMOGs in to language education; [name] is one of them. Second Life can also be used for game-like activities by virtue of its flexibility. Second Life offers educators to create immersive tasks that reward the student for the correct answer. In some respects this approach is a 3D version of an exercise book and there therefore seems to be limited scope to draw on Dogme ideas for guidance with this approach.

Although virtual environments are often thought of as being virtual worlds such as Second Life, there are many other 3D virtual spaces that offer many of these experiences. Google Street View is a case in point; it allows users to virtually visit real cities and see the buildings from the perspective of someone standing in the street. Google Street View is not a social space, but it allows for 3D virtual immersive experiences not so dissimilar to 3D virtual worlds. Another form of virtual environment is the browser-based 3d virtual space “Hangout” which allows users to customize their apartment and invite other avatars to share the space with them. Exit Reality is similar, but also allows users to surf the web in 3D with their avatar.

Blended Learning
The range of 3D virtual environments allows considerable choice in using a specific tool for the desired type of experience. In fact distinguishing between the types of experience (social, immersive etc) helps the educator (or indeed the learner) focus on selecting the right tool for the job. And it is therefore likely that a blend of tools (online of offline; 3D or 2D) will be employed. So blended learning is the most likely format given that virtual environments are excellent for experiential learning yet cannot compete with the flexibility and scope of the 2D web for content and especially text work.

Implications for Dogme teaching with virtual worlds
The immersive, social and creative experiences available with 3D virtual environments can be guided by the Dogme methodology to focus on the students’ own needs and interests and in doing so, to develop their language skills. The above presentations of the Dogme approach and the opportunities offered by virtual worlds have implications for the likely approach to Dogme teaching with virtual worlds.

Firstly the focus on experience leaves considerable scope for using virtual worlds both in class or drawing on them for homework activities. Since Dogme teaching is most interested in the enabling of communication (for learning), the location of that communication (in-world, in physical classrooms or through wiki-based collaboration) is less important. Secondly, given that the students’ engagement is key to enabling the conversations that lead to language emergence, they need to have the freedom to choose where they want to go (in a 3D virtual environment) and what they will do there.

The above implications suggest that a Dogme educator is unlikely to use pre-prepared materials and exercises in a virtual world. And as such, Dogme in virtual worlds has a light touch to technology, much as it does in the conventional classroom. A clear advantage of this approach is that both teachers and students need not be as expert in navigating the complexities of a virtual world such as Second Life. However, the main strength of Dogme is the natural tendency to focus on the strengths of 3D virtual environments – namely the social, immersive and creative experiences.

Dogme Activities in Virtual Worlds
Naturally there is a wide range of activities that could fit into a 3D virtual class inspired by Dogme. A few examples are suggested here…

• Social experiences such as meeting other students or even complete strangers in a 3D virtual space can be achieved through interviews, casual conversations, group discussions or even presentations at conferences held in virtual worlds. Some experiences indicate that social interaction is most productive when it has a clear purpose rather than just conversation practice.
• Students can be immersed in a specific environment, perhaps a place that exists in real life or somewhere imaginary, to stimulate conversation. This can be done through encouraging the student to respond to basic questions about the place or to perhaps elicit more complex responses such as emotional reactions to the 3D environment.
• A more creative approach can be taken by including the building of objects. Perhaps the construction of a house followed by guided tours or through group activities that likewise involve the creation of objects.
• Using MMOGs such as World of Warcraft remains a relatively unexplored field, but it seems likely that there are opportunities to engage students in either communicative and collaborative tasks or perhaps as a quest-like activity.

Role plays may also be done in immersive environments, such as a city tour using Google Street View. There are various examples of using Second Life for simulated training, such as by the Canadian Border Control and the Iowa emergency preparation. However, given the structured and planned nature of such training, it seems there may be less scope to apply Dogme ideas.

Dogme Inspired Lesson: an example
Video clips of a Dogme inspired lesson are embedded below to illustrate how 3D virtual worlds (in this case Second Life) can be integrated into (offline or 2D online) lessons. These clips show how the student is able to identify for himself which vocabulary and structures were key to matching the images and texts; the student was then able to draw on new or unfamiliar vocabulary to use in his own terms, when exploring restaurants in Second Life. Learning opportunities (such as reinforcing the pronunciation of the word ‘bank’) naturally arose with only gentle prompting by the teacher. As such, the lesson reflects the Dogme principles of language emergence, materials-light content and conversation-driven learning.

However, this lesson could have demonstrated greater Dogme influences had the student played a more active role in the selection of materials (from the Lonely Planet site in this case) and of the locations (the restaurants in Second Life) for the virtual field trip. The lesson could also have involved greater social experiences such as the student interviewing other Second Life residents (eg restaurant diners) or leading a group discussion on the topic. However the clips do serve to show the flexibility of virtual worlds and the scope to integrate specific experiences (be it social, immersive, creative or gaming) into Dogme inspired language lessons.

Some related links…

• Second Life as a Social Learning Environment
• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT

This blog post is an attempt to sketch out some initial thoughts on how Augmented Reality Language Learning (ARLL) could be used in a student centered way. Both Task-Based Learning (TBL) and Dogme approaches seem to offer guidance, as do the experiences with Virtual World Language Learning (VWLL). The focus here is very much on mobile access to geo-tagged Wikipedia (Wikitude) and location-based social networking (Google Latitude and BrightKite).

Avatar Languages has yet to develop ARLL lessons, so this blog post merely looks at what may well be possible.

What is Augmented Reality?
AR is the combination of real-world and computer-generated data so that computer generated objects are blended into real time projection of real life activities.

Wikitude – An Immersive Wikipedia
Wikitude is a program that overlays information in Wikipedia about physical places onto the camera screen of a mobile phone.

Wikitude places markers and summaries on the screen exactly where you can see the relevant building or location. These markers also link to the relevant Wikipedia article, which then opens up in the phone’s internet browser (via a 3G connection).

Latitude – Location-Based Social Networks
Google Latitude is just one of several programs that combine social networks with GPS to enable a system to see where other friends are physically located in real time on an online map on the phone. It shows the location of friends along with photos and other profile information. Privacy can be maintained by each user, who can select what to disclose and when to disclose it.

BrightKite – Geo-tagged Twitter
BrightKite offers a free service that looks very much like a geo-tagged twitter-style program. Users can microblog from their mobile devices and the service automatically tracks the microblogger’s location. Depending on each user’s privacy settings, users can see updates (microblog posts) from others who are near them. Although this is not a full service social network (along the lines of Facebook) it does open up location-specific virtual conversations.

Augmented Reality in Mobile Assisted Language Learning
ARLL focuses on contextual learning (see Kukulska-Hulme’s four approaches to MALL) and in so doing, allows the learners to move outside of the conventional classroom and to choose locations that are relevant to their lives. Perhaps this aspect of relevance can lead to greater engagement and therefore the desire to communicate, to converse, and above all, to learn.

Augmented Reality Language Learning and Virtual World Language Learning
VWLL may offer language educators some guidance and ideas for approaching ARLL, especially from a constructivist perspective. In my presentation at SLanguages about Dogme and Virtual Worlds, I mention 4 experiences that are possible with virtual worlds: immersive, social, creative and gaming. It seems likely that these experiences would be possible in ARLL.

Immersive experiences in AR (ie in real life) are certainly very immersive, however there is little flexibility because of the time, effort and money needed to change location and because of the limited opportunities to shape one’s environment in the real world (at least, compared to a virtual world). Using Wikitude we are able to have truly information-rich, immersive experiences, although these will be limited to real life locations.

Social experiences in AR will be extremely real, but limited to the people actually present in the real life location. Geo-tagged twitter would allow microblog-conversations with others will be based on locally relevant and perhaps time-specific topics. This would open the door to more casual, fleeting and yet focused communications – and this could well open up new ways to engage learners in active communication.

Creative experiences can be gained through microblogging, blogging, commenting on blogs, instant messaging, photo-sharing, immediate podcasting/vodcasting and wiki participation.

Gaming experiences in ARLL are already better documented than the other three experiences Ravi Purushotma has outlined an ARLL game activity and the Local Games Lab describes an AR game for non-language learning. Holden and Sykes are currently researching this gaming aspect of ARLL.

Methods for Augmented Reality Language Learning
Approaches to VWLL seem to focus on constructivist-based methodologies such as TBL and Dogme. The question is how these approaches can guide us with using ARLL.

• TBL seems particularly applicable to ARLL, especially with the 24/7 access to location-specific knowledge. Indeed location-based social networking offers opportunities for collaborative tasks using information gap activities.
• Dogme is at first glance less applicable to ARLL than VWLL, especially when concentrating the ARLL on Wikitude, which draws attention to the access to knowledge more than it enables conversations. However, geo-tagged twitter services such as BrightKite could well be woven into a Dogme style lesson. Microblogging is by nature a far more conversant form of blogging and would allow learners to choose to engage with others according to what is relevant to them. It is therefore potentially a very engaging way to communicate.

Activities for Augmented Reality Language Learning
Drawing on both TBL and Dogme, I offer here some possible activities or types of activities for ARLL. Some make a more passive use of the information available through Wikitude; while others involve more the pro-active creation of content.

• Role plays as tour guides, where learners access Wikitude information on the fly. This ‘speed-dating’ equivalent of role play would likely focus on fluency.
• Quests on location, where the students search for ‘treasure’ or even each other based on tasks set by the teacher.
• AR Geocaching, where the hidden containers could be virtual (augmented reality). Conventional Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunting game using GPS to locate hidden containers (geocaches).  The experiences are then shared online.
• Projects and fieldtrips, where students collect data (text, videos, audios and images) while physically exploring a location.
• Blogging, Microblogging and Wiki participation, where students interact with these web 2.0 tools to share ideas and content. This could be part of a project or fieldtrip. Geo-tagging the content could then enable it to feedback into the location-specific body of knowledge.
• Noticing and mobile diaries, where students reflect on their language learning experiences as they happen (as described by Kukulska-Hulme); these activities could be location-specific and therefore make use of location-based social networks or geo-tagged knowledge.

Future of Augmented Reality Language Learning
The thread running through all of the above considerations of ARLL is geo-tagging. Perhaps ARLL is currently just geo-tagged language learning? However, AR is developing very quickly and it will become more usual to interact with virtual objects (rather than super-imposed lays of data) within a real world context. This may well allow users the ability to edit the environment in a similar way to Second Life (see below video for an example). And so there may be opportunities for far more creative learning experiences.

In the meantime, geo-tagging is already moving beyond Wikipedia to include practical information such as ATM locations and real estate offers, as the Layar video below shows.

ARLL will clearly develop according to how AR applications are actually used in real life, and this of course remains to be seen. Technologies often involve shifts in how we communicate and how we relate to knowledge. It may well be that shifts due to AR will open up new opportunities for language education.

Thanks to Graham Stanley for telling me about AR geo-tagging and AR social networks. Thanks also to Pierre Moussy for demonstrating his HTC Magic phone in Paris.

The above YouTube video is worth watching, even though it is over one hour long. It very nicely sets out both what the tool can do and starts to look at how it will change how we work in the future. Of course, there is always the question of whether it will catch on, but given that it is an open source, there is a good chance that this or something similar will become the norm in the forthcoming years.

What is a wave?
The following is how Google sums up Wave …

• A wave is equal parts conversation and document. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.

• A wave is shared. Any participant can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Then playback lets anyone rewind the wave to see who said what and when.

• A wave is live. With live transmission as you type, participants on a wave can have faster conversations, see edits and interact with extensions in real-time.

Enterprise 2.0 –> Learning 2.0
Google have clearly designed wave with the business team user in mind (rather than the individual/private internet user as noted by ZDNet). And it seems likely that it will enable a flatter (less hierarchical) way of team-work within and between organizations. And so if it is going to change the way we work, it is likely that it gives us some indication of changes in learning approaches we can expect with languages. A few initial thoughts below…

Real-time collaboration
The collaborative editing of waves is faster and more continuous than currently possible with Google Docs. It has very much a document layout (in the same way as Word or email does), and so does not seem to combine the freedom of a whiteboard into the wave work-surface. However, it is as responsive as any online whiteboard and allows editing tools that enable participants (students/teacher) to collaboratively create and edit texts and include multimedia.

Playback
Playback is a video style version of a wiki history. It lets you slide through the history of the wave to see how it has changed over its history. This can even be done for one particular participant and so could be used to see how a certain student has interacted with the document.

Commenting / Editing
Wave makes a distinction between editing a document and commenting on it and so a teacher (or student) can comment on the text. For example, this could allow a teacher to highlight areas for correction and give a hint of what the issue is.

Games and Widgets
There is a games function that has been used to create Sudoku and chess games that you can see in the demo film above. I can see potential for interactive quizzes and ‘exercises’ with this tool.

Opinion Polls seem very easy to create within Wave and so it adds some interactivity for students to quiz each other and for teachers to create checks for comprehension.

Spell Check & Automatic Translation
There is an automatic spell check and even an automatic translator for simultaneously communicating with speakers of another language. This raises the question of what skills we need to teach language learners so that they can draw on these tools to improve their communication skills. There may be scope for language education to move further away from accuracy and more into communicative approaches. In fact, if translation bots become more widespread (through the integration into conventional communication tools such as Wave), will the use of English (and other languages) change in an equivalent way to how English is changing as it becomes increasingly a global language with decreasing influence from native speakers.

Conversations rather than Publications
Google Wave certainly appears to be taking us further into the process of information and away from the publication of knowledge. Email and Microsoft Word are still very much focused on the completion and publication of information (with a clear time and date stamp) – even if shuttled to and fro in email conversations or as edited attachments. Wave, however, reflects the continuity of a conversation. The playback function allows us to look at how the wave changed over time, but there is no sense of finishing, publishing and archiving a particular document. This must surely take is in a different direction with knowledge construction and therefore learning approaches. Will language teaching become more obviously the management of conversations that run through various different lessons? Could language lessons become much more interactive with participants beyond the classroom? The very term “conversation” suggests that there may be some synergies to explore between Dogme and Google Wave in the language classroom.

Title: Dogme ELT as a Pedagogy for Language Education in Virtual Worlds
Presenter [avatar name]: Howard Vickers [ Howie Yokishawa ]
The Dogme ELT movement promotes the use of real life materials in the language classroom as a basis for stimulating communication to promote opportunities for language learning. And as such Dogme ELT questions the use of conventional textbooks. Language coursebooks have anyhow yet to appear in virtual worlds such as Second Life, so how can language educators draw on this methodology for their in-world teaching?

• What is Dogme ELT and where is it of most relevance for language education in virtual worlds?
• Examples of virtual world based activities that draw on the Dogme ELT principles.
• How can virtual world activities be integrated into online or offline classes?

The presentation will draw on recent blog articles (below) although it will focus on virtual worlds rather than web 2.0 in general.

• http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/dogme-elt-web20-dogme20/
• http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/relevance-dogme-web-20/

Time: 18.30 – 19.30 (Second Life time = PDT)

Date: Friday 8 May 2009

Location:  EduNation III Seminar Space in Second Life.

Hope to see you there!

Some related links…

• Scott Thornbury in Second Life
• Jeremy Harmer in 3D – Interview in Second Life
• SLanguages 2009: SL as a Social Learning Environment

Dogme and Second Life are a very interesting combination and have a lot to offer each other. It will be extremely interesting to listen to Scott Thornbury’s comments on virtual worlds.

Some notes from Nik Peachey’s blog post on this event…

His writing credits include several award-winning books for teachers on language and methodology. He is also series editor for the Cambridge Handbooks for Teachers (CUP). He was also the co-founder of the dogme ELT group, whose archived website, called Teaching Unplugged, can be found [on the ThornburyScott.com website].

Scott is currently Associate Professor of English Language Studies at the New School in New York, where he teaches on an on-line MATESOL program.

Venue is EduNation II (http://slurl.com/secondlife/EduNation%20II/211/230/21).

Some related links…

• Dogme 2.0: What “Teaching 2.0” Can Learn from Dogme ELT
• Relevance, Motivation and Communication: Connecting Dogme and Web 2.0
• Are Textbooks Still Relevant in a Web 2.0 World?
• Jeremy Harmer in 3D – Interview in Second Life
• SLanguages 2009: Dogme ELT for Virtual Worlds